UVA - SEC (wherever UNC goes) VT - B10 Clemson B10 Miami - SEC GT - B10 NCSU - B10 Total guess but my premise is that to make sense a conference would avoid two teams from the same state. I also believe that some schools would have to take lesser shares similar to UW and Oregon. ** Edited by HwoodHokie at 3/30/2024, 1:15:02 PM

I think you are the only person who directly answered the question so far. LOL. I think I agree with you on these. But Miami is a tough one. Perhaps Miami might be a B1G target. And maybe NCState might go as a trifecta to the SEC with UNC and UVa. But yeah, I could easily see VT and GT going to the B1G--would be nice to keep the TechMo Bowl going. I would also love to go to the same conference as Clemson and FSU.

Could go either way and if UF has a veto right and wants to block other Florida schools maybe it has to be B10.

territory to the B1G.

to 20 teams before the 2026 season.

Seems crazy to me we could get left out in part because a number of teams just happened to be in the right conference at the right time. Those teams being Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, Nebraska, Mississippi State, Vandy, Missouri, Kentucky, etc.

Not in the short term anyway. Never know what happens down the line. Teams like the ones you mention just got lucky to be where they are for inclusion from a football competitive viewpoint.

Nothing like that will happen until they turn into an actual "pro-league." They are playing around the margins now, but that will disappear once they break away and have their own rules. I expect it won't be only football that breaks away, but MBB and possibly WBB.

and that route may be a way easier out than the mythological 8 votes. You don't think Cal, Stanford, and SMU (and maybe even ND who advocated for them) would try to sue the pants off of any schools voting to leave that just voted them in? Try to get all that past a judge in 90 days. To the question, I think ESPN would want all of the VA and NC schools in the SEC but UVA, VT and NC might prefer B1G. They'd probably go to whomever makes the best offer. [Oh, and everyone should look at addiction guy's pupils, lol.]

The PAC2 and The MWC are walking a very narrow tightrope toward 2026. MWC media rights are shared by CBS (primary) and Fox (secondary). CBS has said they will not renew for the next interval. So, it’s Fox only with the new deal to begin in ’26. (Others may jump-in perhaps.) PAC and MWC are in a scheduling agreement and are discussing merger. I think this merger will be the eventual outcome. CW has picked-up PAC’s 13 home football games for ’24-’25 and home games for ’25-’26 as well. The PAC2 is said to be trying to form a repopulated PAC (8? - 10?) by poaching some MWC schools and others, including Eastern schools. The MWC put some protections in-place to discourage PAC poaching. Can other schools just move to The PAC without knowing the media payout? Can the media companies calculate payouts when they don’t know which schools or even how many? The PAC is determined to reconstruct their conference to keep collecting NCAA hoops revenue and maintain their Bowl tie-ins. I think this is futile. The NCAA will not give the new conference “Autonomous” status and the CFP committee will not recognize them as a “Power” level conference. They are just keeping that idea on the front burner in the event of a miracle. What miracle? The availability of “Power” conference content from The ACC… but soon. Imagine: Cal, Stanford, Ore St, Was St, SMU, Pitt, Syracuse, Bos Col, etc. etc. This long-shot could salvage The PAC as a “Power” player. Absent this miracle, The PAC faces a choice of spending tens of millions in poaching fees to acquire MWC schools who would owe exit fees of either $16.6 or $33.2 million (each). And the new PAC would be a G-level outfit. But if the two merged, nobody would need to spend a nickel. The two PAC incumbents could keep all their booty from their divorce and maybe exploit the PACNetwork remains. CW is outsourcing PAC2 production work to the PACNetwork in the same way they use Raycom for ACC games. MWC Commissioner Gloria Nevarez designed a genius scheduling agreement which will bring about a PAC/MWC merger or earn her wounded conference zillions. Here is the schedule of poaching penalties The PAC would pay if the were so bold as to steal teams from The MWC. Why do this when a full merger is free?

- Loss of programming options with death of another P5 conference and relegation of schools - More $ owed to the SEC with their expansion - Migration of other schools to B1G and their network - Political fallout putting a bullseye on the changing landscape and the network’s involvement

Not too extend, the GOR would still have to be dealt with. The lack of the espn extension would give more ammunition against the GOR, but I don't think it would automatically end it. They are two separate contracts.

no more, no less. It is in the plain language of the GOR. With no ESPN contract, the GOR has no purpose. I think whoever judges the Clemson suit will affirm that question pretty quickly; the ACC may not even challenge it. However, the ACC won't budge on the exit fee but if Clemson gets the first question answered, they may drop the rest.

Other. The purpose of the GOR is actually to keep the conference together. One of the purposes of keeping the conference together is so we can sign a lucrative media deal, one that includes a network. But that is not the only purpose for keeping the conference together, but without it, I can't see the schools signing such a long-term GOR. GOR grants media rights to the conference for a certain period of time. The GOR does not include any conditions related to media contracts or conference network. Those connections would have to be argued in court. Once things go to court who knows what happens. But the two separate contracts are not connected in a way that would cause one to end because the other came to an end. That will require a court battle. I would agree that there's a strong argument to be made, but that argument will have to be made in court. And if the fact that ESPN has the choice to opt out halfway through the contract was hidden from the schools when they were asked to sign the GOR, then that makes an even stronger argument I would think. The ACC is not going to just throw away the GOR because ESPN chooses not to renew. In fact, I would expect the ACC to argue that the GOR is more important than ever, because now they need to keep the conference together to negotiate a new media deal. I would expect FSU and Clemson to argue they signed the GOR because of a specific media deal with ESPN. But no specific media deals are listed as reasons for the GOR in the contract. Those connections have to be argued in court. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 3/30/2024, 2:48:10 PM

the rights granted are defined by the media contract with ESPN on a specific date ("all rights necessary for the Conference to perform contractual obligations...expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement"). There are NO specific rights listed in the GOR. The conference can't say we own rights A, B, and C because they aren't listed. Yes, the GOR is a separate deal; yes it would likely go to court (why Clemson is there now); but no, it cannot be applied to a subsequent contract. The GOR says any amendment would have to signed again..."this Agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference." If you take the word ESPN out or change the date, the current GOR may not technically be canceled, but it can't be applied to anything else. ** Edited by daveinop at 3/30/2024, 5:10:36 PM ** Edited by daveinop at 3/30/2024, 5:11:42 PM

...or a much cheaper way to buy yourself out of the contract.

*for the record, I don't think the MAG 7 is any more important than "The Alliance", but others think there might be more to it than that. So I am assuming the latter are correct for said hypothetical.

Will there be a TV deal for such a regional product that would have a good enough per team payout to make sense? I don’t get this whole Mag 7 concept.

I assume the ACC will lose their tie ins if the MAG 7 + goes away -> probably B1G and SEC both claim one of the new tie ins.

But Duke would probably have to be a package deal with UNC for the B1G to go for that. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 3/29/2024, 8:18:45 PM

But Duke basketball is where their value lies. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 3/29/2024, 9:52:51 PM

In their conferences. I don’t think the Big 18 and SEC are interested in little private school football programs not named Notre Dame even if their value is in basketball. Even though Duke is decent this year in roundball, they may look like St. John’s in the 2000s soon. I could be wrong, but Duke basketball as good as it could be would bring in less revenue than Louisville, NCSU or VT football. If a “mag 7” or “mag 8” is needed to break the GORs in some back room meeting, I suspect the top 4 are FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVa because of football for the first 2 and because of athletic richness and number of sports programs for the last 2. The next 4 could be anyone. I’m not as confident as my fellow Hokies that Tech makes the cut because we are the pre 2016 Chicago Cubs and Denny Hamlin of college sports and get the shaft at every corner…. so it seems to reason that Miami, NCSU, GT, SU or even Louisville would get a nod before us. Lastly, all this confidence that the SEC or Big want just ACC schools needs to be viewed with caution. I see Kansas, OK State, Colorado, Zona and ASU as being good or better targets than the mag 7/8. Colorado could hook up with Nebraska again as a yearly rival, KU is just like UNC with great roundball but a decent sized football stadium although not really known for football. Lots can happen and not certain if all the mag 7/8 lands in the P2…. Some may land in the conference of misfit toys or remain in a watered down ACC that will be no better than the AAC. ** Edited by Calamitous at 3/29/2024, 11:00:04 PM